Finally, someone has called Mayor Rob Ford to account for his reckless actions. Judge Charles Hackland removed him from office Monday, effective in 14 days, ruling the mayor of two years had violated municipal conflict of interest rules.
Unfortunately, Ford isn’t the only one who has to pay.
Toronto residents are without the mayor they elected — and if the decision of Justice Hackland holds through the expected court appeals — Torontonians may have to pay an estimated $7 million to stage a city-wide byelection to replace the mayor.
The judge found the mayor’s claim that he didn’t know the rules amounted to “wilful blindness. As such I find his actions are incompatible with an error in judgment.”
What now?
The mayor’s Ford Nation supporters will see the court decision as evidence that their man is being persecuted and hounded from office. His opponents will be glad to see him go. The rest of the city is left shaking their heads.
If the decision holds through the anticipated appeals, expect Ford to immediately launch a re-election bid for 2014. And a ding-dong fight it will be — with Ford feeding off the decision and the other court cases pending — as proof that the enemies of the people don’t want him at city hall stopping the “gravy train.”
Removing the democratically-elected mayor is not a decision to be taken lightly. Council must now pull together and act in the best interest of the city — despite the shocking decision.
That likely means that an interim mayor should be one who shares Ford’s politics; a member of his team. And any permanent solution should go to the people for review in a byelection.
The decision is instructive for many reasons. It shows that Ford — in words and actions — is incompatible with our laws and conventions. He often bulldozes ahead, ignoring the principles and explicit rules that govern his office. And that won’t be tolerated.
In fact, the judge saw through his defiance of the city’s integrity commissioner, whose advice he ignored.
Justice Hackland called it “one last protest against the integrity commissioner’s position that he profoundly disagreed with.”
Imagine: our civic leader is the one actively butting heads against the very independent official established to ensure good government and ethical conduct.
And the mayor’s troubles are not ended, even if this decision were to be overturned. Two more court cases are pending. Testimony in a defamation lawsuit ended last week, with a decision unlikely before Christmas. And in December 2011, Ford appealed a decision by the city’s compliance audit committee to order an audit of his election campaign expenses to see if he followed the rules in the municipal election.
At best, Ford will limp along — diminished in the eyes of his colleagues at council; cleared in the courts, yet tarnished in the eyes of the general public.
His approval rating is already at abysmally low levels for a mayor just two years into his term.
This issue started quite innocently, as do most things with the mayor. When he was a city councillor Rob Ford solicited funds from city hall lobbyists for his private football foundation.
However, integrity commissioner Janet Leiper ruled in 2010 that Ford was wrong to use official letterhead and other city resources to solicit those donations.
Ford ignored six letters from Leiper, pushing her to recommend that city council force the mayor to act. Council voted to make Ford repay the $3,150 he received in donations.
“I provided him with an opportunity to review his response before forwarding it to the complainant. I did this because Councillor Ford had recently received advice from my office that he should not fundraise in this way. This advice was given in December 2009 and again in February 2010, after two prior complaints were made by other people who received Football Foundation letters from the councillor,” Leiper wrote to council in August 2010.
By 2010 Ford was mayor and the new council, under his influence, voted to rescind the earlier council decision. Ford debated the issue at council and voted with the majority to save him from paying the $3,150. A citizen took the mayor to court.
Some have argued that Ford’s actions were not serious. After all, he was not pocketing taxpayers’ money.
The integrity commissioner addressed this ably.
“In return for these donations . . . Councillor Ford received the benefit of additional funding to his foundation, which he used to enhance his reputation both as a Councillor via his website and as a candidate by including this information in his campaign materials.”
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Royson James
Unfortunately, Ford isn’t the only one who has to pay.
Toronto residents are without the mayor they elected — and if the decision of Justice Hackland holds through the expected court appeals — Torontonians may have to pay an estimated $7 million to stage a city-wide byelection to replace the mayor.
The judge found the mayor’s claim that he didn’t know the rules amounted to “wilful blindness. As such I find his actions are incompatible with an error in judgment.”
What now?
The mayor’s Ford Nation supporters will see the court decision as evidence that their man is being persecuted and hounded from office. His opponents will be glad to see him go. The rest of the city is left shaking their heads.
If the decision holds through the anticipated appeals, expect Ford to immediately launch a re-election bid for 2014. And a ding-dong fight it will be — with Ford feeding off the decision and the other court cases pending — as proof that the enemies of the people don’t want him at city hall stopping the “gravy train.”
Removing the democratically-elected mayor is not a decision to be taken lightly. Council must now pull together and act in the best interest of the city — despite the shocking decision.
That likely means that an interim mayor should be one who shares Ford’s politics; a member of his team. And any permanent solution should go to the people for review in a byelection.
The decision is instructive for many reasons. It shows that Ford — in words and actions — is incompatible with our laws and conventions. He often bulldozes ahead, ignoring the principles and explicit rules that govern his office. And that won’t be tolerated.
In fact, the judge saw through his defiance of the city’s integrity commissioner, whose advice he ignored.
Justice Hackland called it “one last protest against the integrity commissioner’s position that he profoundly disagreed with.”
Imagine: our civic leader is the one actively butting heads against the very independent official established to ensure good government and ethical conduct.
And the mayor’s troubles are not ended, even if this decision were to be overturned. Two more court cases are pending. Testimony in a defamation lawsuit ended last week, with a decision unlikely before Christmas. And in December 2011, Ford appealed a decision by the city’s compliance audit committee to order an audit of his election campaign expenses to see if he followed the rules in the municipal election.
At best, Ford will limp along — diminished in the eyes of his colleagues at council; cleared in the courts, yet tarnished in the eyes of the general public.
His approval rating is already at abysmally low levels for a mayor just two years into his term.
This issue started quite innocently, as do most things with the mayor. When he was a city councillor Rob Ford solicited funds from city hall lobbyists for his private football foundation.
However, integrity commissioner Janet Leiper ruled in 2010 that Ford was wrong to use official letterhead and other city resources to solicit those donations.
Ford ignored six letters from Leiper, pushing her to recommend that city council force the mayor to act. Council voted to make Ford repay the $3,150 he received in donations.
“I provided him with an opportunity to review his response before forwarding it to the complainant. I did this because Councillor Ford had recently received advice from my office that he should not fundraise in this way. This advice was given in December 2009 and again in February 2010, after two prior complaints were made by other people who received Football Foundation letters from the councillor,” Leiper wrote to council in August 2010.
By 2010 Ford was mayor and the new council, under his influence, voted to rescind the earlier council decision. Ford debated the issue at council and voted with the majority to save him from paying the $3,150. A citizen took the mayor to court.
Some have argued that Ford’s actions were not serious. After all, he was not pocketing taxpayers’ money.
The integrity commissioner addressed this ably.
“In return for these donations . . . Councillor Ford received the benefit of additional funding to his foundation, which he used to enhance his reputation both as a Councillor via his website and as a candidate by including this information in his campaign materials.”
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Royson James
No comments:
Post a Comment